Archive for the ‘The Ugly’ Category

Naxal Watch has published an article attempting to rationalize the initiation of violence by Hindu organisations.

They forget that the people who they list as prosecutors of Hindus died centuries ago. It is a grave miscarriage of justice to use acts commited by people long died to justify violence against people living today.

In their orgy of collectivism they forget that people are individuals, responsible neither for the misdeeds of their ancestors, nor of their descendents, nor of their co-religionists provided they do not condone those acts.

In their rant against the “Marxist” media, they forget that the primary flaw of Marxism is to view people as mere units completely determined by the membership of a social class. A trap into which Naxal Watch, in it’s defence of Hindu terrorists, has fallen.

In their objection to the conversion of “innocent” Hindus, they forget that the Hindus are converting by choice. At last look, religious conversions were still permitted by the law.

Lastly, they forget that there is nothing unpatriotic about not toeing the line of Hindu organizations.

This blog still stands by it’s earlier view that militant Hinduism is just as much of a threat to civilization as militant Islam or any other religion driven by the passion of it’s own unfalliable superiority.

The writer of this blog is proud to say that he is neither Hindu, nor Muslim, nor Christian, nor Marxist but an individualist.

On the 22nd of September, L.K. Chaudhary, the CEO of an Indian company, was lynched by former employees of his factory. Justifying the muder, Oscar Fernandes, Labour Minister in the Government of India said:

“There are disparities in the wages of permanent employees and contract workers. The workers should not be pushed so hard that they resort to whatever that had happened in Noida,”

The law is meant to protect the rights of the individual and when a minister in a government inverts this principle and defends instead the violation of rights then that minister is unfit for office.

Therefore, Mr. Fernandes should be asked to step down from his post immediately.

Of the major religions in the world the followers of Islam and Hinduism produce the greatest number of terrorists. This cannot be denied even by the apologists for these religions who, of course, consider Hinduism and Islam to be religions of peace.

What separates the Christians? They too produced a great amount of religious bloodshed in the dark ages. Why are they silent now? Why do they not start religious wars? Why don’t they walk around starting riots or planting bombs in crowded areas to kill infidels?

The answer lies somewhere in the fact that the Christians have come to accept that religious texts should be taken metaphorically and not literally. Even the Vatican Astronomer admits so much. Hinduism and Islam will continue to produce terrorists till such time as their followers do not learn this lesson.

I have previously written than the wishes and perception of a majority of people does not mean that they should prevail.

Confirmation of this came only a few days later in the form of a gruesome “honour” killing.

Sunita’s uncle declares:

”Police and the government is with the society. The whole village is with (the killers).”

The will of the majority is clear so should the killers go free? What if the entire country, the entire world agreed with Sunita’s uncle? Should the killers still be punished?

It is not difficult to imagine that people who are not driven by clannish loyalties would answer that the killers should be punished. They would be correct. The responsibility for an act lies with the actors. The worth of an idea however, is more difficult to judge until it’s consequences are seen.

The idea behind this murder is that the majority can dispose of people as they see fit and the consequences are now visible. Sunita was killed in effect, by everyone who holds the idea that the majority is always right.

In a world of no fixed moral code everyone who has caused physical harm to the innocent has an eulogizer. The Communist/Naxalite/Marxist Anuradha Ghandy is no exception.

The typical form for such an eulogy is that it is typically written by someone who was in the past close to the person. The person is remembered for some trait that might be considered nice for example they were kind to children, always cheerful etc.

In the orgy of praise, the ideas the person followed or stood for are considered irrelevant. What is worse, the blame is often cast on a third person. What is still worse, the blame is cast indirectly – as Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been blamed right at the end of the article on Anuradha Ghandy.

To this blogger, Anuradha Ghandy deserves condemnation, not praise. And so does any person who tries to cover the essential nature of such people behind mindless personal reminisces.

The rest of us have to discard the idea that everyone has some good in them. No, some people are just plain bad, even if once in a while they laugh and play with their friends.

The short history over at the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) states their desire to be free from all political ideologies so that they can be free to pursue the defence of Civil Liberties in India. To add to this they say they do not accept funds from people other than their members, activists and office bearers.

When we look at this a little closer it is evident that they pursue the “defence” from a definite ideological stance that can only be said to be leftist. A case in point is this story which expresses dismay at the killing of Maoist (also known as Naxalites and Communists) leaders. The killing of these people may or may not have been extra-judicial but nowhere does the PUCL story identify the nature of the Maoists. They will not state anywhere that the Maoists are a terror organization which brooks no dissent. For some “light reading” click here. (If it makes you sick, blame the Communists.)

Where now does the PUCL claim of being free of ideology lie?

Objectively, nowhere.

Every human being if one observes carefully, has some guiding (or misguiding as the case may be) principles even if these principles are held subconciously. One can call this ideology or one can be more accurate and call it philosophy.

But look, and you will find behind every individual and every organization the moving force of philosophy. If that we not so, it would be possible for every human being to a perfectly good one moment, perfectly bad another. Every person a Jeckel and Hyde. In reality, this does not happen, people are more or less the same every day.

Some have a philosophy that improves human lives. In this category we can count the great artists, scientists and engineers. In others, such as Communists and Socialists, we find those who leave behind nothing more than war, devastation and dead bodies.

The only choice each of us has is to choose which philosophy we choose to follow. The Maoists/Socialists/Communists have chosen theirs and the rest of us would do well to recognize the fact and not be fooled by their protests of being non-ideological.

As in many other cases, when celebrities, particularly those with impressive “superstructures”, start advocating causes, the facts behind problems and their long term solutions fall by the wayside.

In the case of the food crisis, at least some of the problem was caused by other celebrities demanding increases in bio-fuel production diverting crops that would otherwise be available on the food market.

Indians are some of the biggest peaceniks in the World. They are willing almost to pay any cost to avoid being seen as nasty. (They only wany to avoid being seen as nasty, not to avoid nastiness as such.) A case, in point has been all the handwringing about the Olympics being an event where all nations participate in peace etc. This despite the Chinese crackdown in Tibet.

No matter what happens, Indians are not willing to see China as a danger.